I don 't care what you posted before about your religions origins and/or reasoning.

You think this this is first time I've had to do this with someone like you!

DVZ3, one moment you ask me for my story, then the next you say you don't care what I've already posted about it. What is it that you think you are "doing" with me? And what do you mean "someone like you"? If you are going to be menacing and threatening, then I won't ignore you, I'll report you to the Admin.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

albeto, I think that our perspectives are so far apart that there is nothing that I can say in response to your post that will be of any interest to you.

On the contrary, it is because our perspectives are so far apart that what you say is of interest.

I don't expect you will change my mind, and I hope you understand I am not trying to change your mind. I would be interested in your answers, but if you are short on time, or if you are feeling frustrated at being in the position of defending that which is admittedly irrational, I would be happy if you answered just one question: How do you define "sin"?

GF's definition of sin: Sin is anything that you think, say, or do that does not please God. Is that clear enough?

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

GF's definition of sin: Sin is anything that you think, say, or do that does not please God. Is that clear enough?

Yes, thanks!

Mind a follow up question?

If I yell at my children, does that displease God? Is that a "sin"? If my neighbor suffered a stroke and was unable to suppress the immediate frustration and rage that comes from something unexpectedly, does she "sin" if she yells at a her husband who dropped a remote control on accident? Does that yelling fail to please God? What if another neighbor grew up in an environment where yelling a person was simply expected? What if she grew up physically assaulted for irritating her own mother, and found no relief from siblings, friends, or schoolmates, because to "get a lickin'" was simply understood as a part of life? When she yells out of habit and conditioning, does that fail to please God? Is it a "sin" if she never learned other social skills? What about a neighbor's girl with autism who feels pain in her head from the many noises, lights, smells, and textures on a school field trip? When she yells, disrupting the field trip, does she fail to please God? What about when the neighbor who recently had her fifth child and is sleep deprived and can hardly think straight but has no respite available to her looses her temper because her brain immediately releases adrenaline and she responds to this primal reaction by yelling at her young children. Does she fail to please God? In these examples, a person may behave in a way that displeases God, but perhaps they did not intend to displease him. Arguably, God knows this because he knows our heart, our desires, etc.

Ultimately, my question is, are there times a particular behavior would displease God under one circumstance, but not under another?

If so, is it the behavior that is indicative of sin? Or is it the intent to piss of God that is indicative of sin?

If I yell at my children, does that displease God? Is that a "sin"? If my neighbor suffered a stroke and was unable to suppress the immediate frustration and rage that comes from something unexpectedly, does she "sin" if she yells at a her husband who dropped a remote control on accident? Does that yelling fail to please God? What if another neighbor grew up in an environment where yelling a person was simply expected? What if she grew up physically assaulted for irritating her own mother, and found no relief from siblings, friends, or schoolmates, because to "get a lickin'" was simply understood as a part of life? When she yells out of habit and conditioning, does that fail to please God? Is it a "sin" if she never learned other social skills? What about a neighbor's girl with autism who feels pain in her head from the many noises, lights, smells, and textures on a school field trip? When she yells, disrupting the field trip, does she fail to please God? What about when the neighbor who recently had her fifth child and is sleep deprived and can hardly think straight but has no respite available to her looses her temper because her brain immediately releases adrenaline and she responds to this primal reaction by yelling at her young children. Does she fail to please God? In these examples, a person may behave in a way that displeases God, but perhaps they did not intend to displease him. Arguably, God knows this because he knows our heart, our desires, etc.

Ultimately, my question is, are there times a particular behavior would displease God under one circumstance, but not under another?

If so, is it the behavior that is indicative of sin? Or is it the intent to piss of God that is indicative of sin?

If you yell at your children to get out of the street because they might get run over, then you yelled at them because you love them Where is the sin in that?

If you yell at your children because you have anger in your heart because you are selfish and they ate your last Twinkie, then it is your selfishness and anger that is the sin.

I think that you can approach your other examples with a little rational thinking and determine whether or not they are sin.

Jesus raised the bar with the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and described sin as not just an act, but the inner heart's disposition. We can discuss further you think it would be helpful.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

I think that you can approach your other examples with a little rational thinking and determine whether or not they are sin.

Actually I have, and the issue of "sin" was the first major breakthrough out of my religious belief: Because intent is what determines "sin," all one needs to do is understand the process of behavior to rule out "sin" as an explanation for inappropriate behavior.

Jesus raised the bar with the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and described sin as not just an act, but the inner heart's disposition. We can discuss further you think it would be helpful.

I'm quite enjoying this, thank you. I think it jives with the OP's purpose of asking this question because if you can understand how human behavior is explained outside the realm of "sin," it would make a difference in your religious beliefs, wouldn't it?

I think that you can approach your other examples with a little rational thinking and determine whether or not they are sin.

Actually I have, and the issue of "sin" was the first major breakthrough out of my religious belief: Because intent is what determines "sin," all one needs to do is understand the process of behavior to rule out "sin" as an explanation for inappropriate behavior.

I can't follow your logic here, so I apologize if you were expecting a response here.

Jesus raised the bar with the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and described sin as not just an act, but the inner heart's disposition. We can discuss further you think it would be helpful.

I'm quite enjoying this, thank you. I think it jives with the OP's purpose of asking this question because if you can understand how human behavior is explained outside the realm of "sin," it would make a difference in your religious beliefs, wouldn't it?

If there is no realm of "sin" then why bother to try to understand human behavior? It would neither be good nor bad, it would just be.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

So the myth we atheists are fighting when we take on Christians is not their god. It is their excuse. And that excuse is sin. We've been dong it wrong. It's time to go after the disease, not the symptom. The naïve notion of sin needs to disappear first. The normal range of human behaviors has to be redefined as normal, not as a personal affront to their god. IF we can succeed in that, the church will have no justification for existing.

Hey, I get to quote myself!

As I said in the OP for this thread, sin is a requirement for Christianity. Otherwise it has no raison d'être to exist. (Don't worry, I had to look that one up, guys.) So people such as GF are required to stress its importance. Otherwise they haven't got a prayer. So to speak. So his expertise on the subject, nay, the expertise of all Christians on the subject, is second nature to them. Otherwise they have nothing.

Again, as I said a little earlier in the OP,

Quote

Anyway, sin is the glue that holds christianity together. It is the common denominator that makes for obedient denominations. It is the fear factor that is used to control and uninform the masses. It is the hole card. It is the cat's pajamas. And Christians love it. They wouldn't have it any other way. Christianity without sin would just be no fun at all.

Without defining sin so broadly that anything they want can fit the definition, they would have to spend time on justifying specifics. As it is, they can over-generalize their hearts out whenever the subject arises.

Notice that they will never address the issue of human psychology, or respond to questions about the natural range of human behaviors in any thread. I've brought it up over and over again, and have yet to have a believer say a single word on the topic. As one not caught up in the supernatural blame game, I see that the variety of human behaviors we experience as something that comes from human psychology, social conditions, cultural differences, moments of passion and other variables. Christians don't want variables. They just want us to sin so they will have a way to make us feel guilty and maybe join them. They don't have to go in to any detail, because anything that doesn't include kittens can be defined as sinful if it gives them a tiny advantage in the conversion game.

Note that they also have to assume that their god never said "Sh*t!" after burning himself while making a new star. Silly wabbits.

So the myth we atheists are fighting when we take on Christians is not their god. It is their excuse. And that excuse is sin. We've been dong it wrong. It's time to go after the disease, not the symptom. The naïve notion of sin needs to disappear first. The normal range of human behaviors has to be redefined as normal, not as a personal affront to their god. IF we can succeed in that, the church will have no justification for existing.

Hey, I get to quote myself!

As I said in the OP for this thread, sin is a requirement for Christianity. Otherwise it has no raison d'être to exist. (Don't worry, I had to look that one up, guys.) So people such as GF are required to stress its importance. Otherwise they haven't got a prayer. So to speak. So his expertise on the subject, nay, the expertise of all Christians on the subject, is second nature to them. Otherwise they have nothing.

Again, as I said a little earlier in the OP,

Quote

Anyway, sin is the glue that holds christianity together. It is the common denominator that makes for obedient denominations. It is the fear factor that is used to control and uninform the masses. It is the hole card. It is the cat's pajamas. And Christians love it. They wouldn't have it any other way. Christianity without sin would just be no fun at all.

Without defining sin so broadly that anything they want can fit the definition, they would have to spend time on justifying specifics. As it is, they can over-generalize their hearts out whenever the subject arises.

Notice that they will never address the issue of human psychology, or respond to questions about the natural range of human behaviors in any thread. I've brought it up over and over again, and have yet to have a believer say a single word on the topic. As one not caught up in the supernatural blame game, I see that the variety of human behaviors we experience as something that comes from human psychology, social conditions, cultural differences, moments of passion and other variables. Christians don't want variables. They just want us to sin so they will have a way to make us feel guilty and maybe join them. They don't have to go in to any detail, because anything that doesn't include kittens can be defined as sinful if it gives them a tiny advantage in the conversion game.

Note that they also have to assume that their god never said "Sh*t!" after burning himself while making a new star. Silly wabbits.

Is raping babies in the range of normal human behavior? How about cannibalism? Serial murders? Physical abuse of any kind on a spouse or child? Robbery?

PP, psychology, environment, cultural differences, etc. might be useful to explain - apart from sin - why people could be motivated to do these things. But psychology, environment, and the other things you mentioned do not explain why universally baby raper, cannibalism, serial murder, physical abuse of spouse or child, and robbery are wrong.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Is raping babies in the range of normal human behavior? How about cannibalism? Serial murders? Physical abuse of any kind on a spouse or child? Robbery?

PP, psychology, environment, cultural differences, etc. might be useful to explain - apart from sin - why people could be motivated to do these things. But psychology, environment, and the other things you mentioned do not explain why universally baby raper, cannibalism, serial murder, physical abuse of spouse or child, and robbery are wrong.

Normal, sadly, is not limited to that which is acceptable. So yes, raping babies is included in the range of normal human behavior. Otherwise it wouldn't happen.

And what do you care what is normal. For you, a kid lying when mommy asks if she's cleaned her room is just as terrible as raping babies, so I'm not going to apologize for defining the latter as normal (albeit fortunately rare).

Is raping babies in the range of normal human behavior? How about cannibalism? Serial murders? Physical abuse of any kind on a spouse or child? Robbery?

PP, psychology, environment, cultural differences, etc. might be useful to explain - apart from sin - why people could be motivated to do these things. But psychology, environment, and the other things you mentioned do not explain why universally baby raper, cannibalism, serial murder, physical abuse of spouse or child, and robbery are wrong.

Normal, sadly, is not limited to that which is acceptable. So yes, raping babies is included in the range of normal human behavior. Otherwise it wouldn't happen.

And what do you care what is normal. For you, a kid lying when mommy asks if she's cleaned her room is just as terrible as raping babies, so I'm not going to apologize for defining the latter as normal (albeit fortunately rare).

Baby rape is normal in your worldview? Yes, ,of course it is, because there are no absolute objective moral truths in your worldview. If there were, you would have answered my question by now. You've talked about studying behavior - why people do what they do - but as of yet you still have not explained how behaviors are are determined to be wrong or right? Please don't dodge the question. Surely you must know. This is your opportunity to teach me and many others.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

The problem we have here is outside the realm of your understanding Gf because there are things that Yahweh commands of his subjects that are in direct contradiction of his beloved commandments. Yes or no, does god command the killing of men women and children?

Is this command in direct violation of a commandment? Is the commandment null and void if it is a direct command? There is no grey area here and the end justifies the means does not apply. It is wrong all the time to break a commandment or it is not wrong . A standard set by a god can't be broken with a command( to kill in this example)by said god it is pure nonsense

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

The problem we have here is outside the realm of your understanding Gf because there are things that Yahweh commands of his subjects that are in direct contradiction of his beloved commandments. Yes or no, does god command the killing of men women and children?

Is this command in direct violation of a commandment? Is the commandment null and void if it is a direct command? There is no grey area here and the end justifies the means does not apply. It is wrong all the time to break a commandment or it is not wrong . A standard set by a god can't be broken with a command( to kill in this example)by said god it is pure nonsense

12M, first, you told me that you have never read the Bible, so you are only making a statement about something that you admit you have no firsthand knowledge of. Correct?

But in the spirit of meaningful discussion, I shall begin to answer your questions. Which command of God to kill men, women, and children are you referring to? I must have the book, chapter, and verse number in order to evaluate whether the command is a direct violation of a commandment. Thanks.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Btw Gf beating your wife and kids was the social norm up until the mid 20 th century this is a fine example of bad behavior as a norm no longer being acceptable. Just as this norm in modern humanity no longer allows the church to haves as much power and influence in your daily life,especially for non believers.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

I can't follow your logic here, so I apologize if you were expecting a response here.

I was just commenting that I have used rational thinking on this problem and the only logical conclusion is that "sin" is an outdated, inaccurate theory to explain human behavior. In the same way we no longer attribute seizures to demonic attack, we no longer attribute socially inappropriate behavior to "sin." It's a matter of knowledge. Your God of the Gaps is getting smaller.

If there is no realm of "sin" then why bother to try to understand human behavior? It would neither be good nor bad, it would just be.

There would be all the same reasons to understand human behavior! Conflict resolution that is mutually respectful contributes to the peace and advancement of society. Understanding what compels people to behave in socially inappropriate ways, allows us to work on finding a way to address these compulsions before people are hurt. Resources can be reallocated from catching criminals to avoiding crimes by identifying and addressing potential problems before they are actual problems. Lastly, it's more compassionate to help someone avoid pain and suffering than it is to comfort them after.

PP, psychology, environment, cultural differences, etc. might be useful to explain - apart from sin - why people could be motivated to do these things. But psychology, environment, and the other things you mentioned do not explain why universally baby raper, cannibalism, serial murder, physical abuse of spouse or child, and robbery are wrong.

Actually, they do. Evolutionary biology and biology of behavior do explain these things. Check out Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" for more information about how.

I can't follow your logic here, so I apologize if you were expecting a response here.

I was just commenting that I have used rational thinking on this problem and the only logical conclusion is that "sin" is an outdated, inaccurate theory to explain human behavior. In the same way we no longer attribute seizures to demonic attack, we no longer attribute socially inappropriate behavior to "sin." It's a matter of knowledge. Your God of the Gaps is getting smaller.

Your answer still does not help in determining how we determine what is wrong and what is right. You answer only explains how we can study the behaviors but not how we can pass judgment on them.

If there is no realm of "sin" then why bother to try to understand human behavior? It would neither be good nor bad, it would just be.

Quote

There would be all the same reasons to understand human behavior! Conflict resolution that is mutually respectful contributes to the peace and advancement of society. Understanding what compels people to behave in socially inappropriate ways, allows us to work on finding a way to address these compulsions before people are hurt. Resources can be reallocated from catching criminals to avoiding crimes by identifying and addressing potential problems before they are actual problems. Lastly, it's more compassionate to help someone avoid pain and suffering than it is to comfort them after.

How do you pass judgment on what are compulsions? If they are compulsions from normal human nature, they are neither good nor bad so how can they "hurt" anyone? How do you determine what is good for society and what is bad for society? That implies you have some moral standard. Where did this moral standard come from?How do you determine what is criminal without absolute objective moral truths?What is the foundation for showing compassion and comfort to another if you can't explain where moral standards come from? Hurt would be illusory because evil and sin are illusory.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Baby rape is normal in your worldview? Yes, ,of course it is, because there are no absolute objective moral truths in your worldview. If there were, you would have answered my question by now. You've talked about studying behavior - why people do what they do - but as of yet you still have not explained how behaviors are are determined to be wrong or right? Please don't dodge the question. Surely you must know. This is your opportunity to teach me and many others.

Um, GF, you're on no ground here to argue superior moral values. The God you worship not only advocated genocide, but systematic kidnapping, rape (yes, even children, well girls anyway), capital punishment for such "sins" as disobedient children, incest, and killed off every. living. creature. on. earth (save one drunken man, and his kids, one of which was cursed with producing a "race" of slaves), and demands a blood sacrifice of an innocent victim for a crime he set up before anyone was born. This "blood money" you celebrate with bread and wine (grape juice?) doesn't stand up to modern ethical standards and why? Because we know more about how the world works, why people do what they do, and how to respond to problems in rational, intellectual ways.

PP, psychology, environment, cultural differences, etc. might be useful to explain - apart from sin - why people could be motivated to do these things. But psychology, environment, and the other things you mentioned do not explain why universally baby raper, cannibalism, serial murder, physical abuse of spouse or child, and robbery are wrong.

Actually, they do. Evolutionary biology and biology of behavior do explain these things. Check out Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" for more information about how.

Baby rape is normal in your worldview? Yes, ,of course it is, because there are no absolute objective moral truths in your worldview. If there were, you would have answered my question by now. You've talked about studying behavior - why people do what they do - but as of yet you still have not explained how behaviors are are determined to be wrong or right? Please don't dodge the question. Surely you must know. This is your opportunity to teach me and many others.

Um, GF, you're on no ground here to argue superior moral values. The God you worship not only advocated genocide, but systematic kidnapping, rape (yes, even children, well girls anyway), capital punishment for such "sins" as disobedient children, incest, and killed off every. living. creature. on. earth (save one drunken man, and his kids, one of which was cursed with producing a "race" of slaves), and demands a blood sacrifice of an innocent victim for a crime he set up before anyone was born. This "blood money" you celebrate with bread and wine (grape juice?) doesn't stand up to modern ethical standards and why? Because we know more about how the world works, why people do what they do, and how to respond to problems in rational, intellectual ways.

Again, you dodge the question. Moderators, are you keeping score? I'm not even bringing God into the question, I'm just asking albeto how behaviors are determined to be wrong or right, yet he just goes off on a tangent.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Gf answer the question is killing someone break a commandment yes or no? If God commands you to break the commandment is it then ok?

Why is it ok to kill on command but not at another time?

I will be happy to answer your question when you give me more information. Otherwise, based on what information you have given me, I can only say "yes, no, maybe - depending on the specifics of what you are talking about."

12M, i really would like the opportunity to answer your question if you really want an answer. Is it too much to ask you which verse in the Bible that you are referring to in your previous post?

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Your answer still does not help in determining how we determine what is wrong and what is right. You answer only explains how we can study the behaviors but not how we can pass judgment on them.

If I recall correctly, I've responded to this by now, but to recap, evolutionary biology and biology of human behavior, in addition to social circumstances, knowledge, and exposure to other cultures all contribute to determining what is socially appropriate (right) and what is not socially appropriate (wrong). Knowing human behavior in more detail helps to understand why people don't always do what they may intend to do. Paul talks about this when he says the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Well, we know better now, just like we know why someone who suffers from schizophrenia experiences hallucinations.

I think Sam Harris has a persuasive argument about just this thing. Basically, when we note that one's well-being is unjustifiably compromised, and can be relieved, the ethical thing to do is relieve that suffering. Same thing with preventing suffering. I'll link a video where he explains just this thing at the end of this post.

If they are compulsions from normal human nature, they are neither good nor bad so how can they "hurt" anyone?

Now I think you're being intentionally obtuse. Rape "hurts" people because something being forced into one's vagina or rectum against their will is physically damaging and emotionally traumatizing. Surely you understand this objectively. As 12Monkeys mentioned, behaviors we consider to be crimes today were customary until relatively recently in history. Rape was not honored as a crime against a wife a hundred years ago. Rape against children wasn't spoken about a hundred years ago, and this was justified Christian societies. Do you want me to go on, or do you recognize that you and I have the same understanding that some behaviors hurt, they causes suffering, and when that is avoidable it's ethical to avoid it. The difference we have is in explaining how this happens, and therefore what solution to apply. But the idea that suffering and pain are unique to religious people is not only offensive (don't worry, I'm not offended, I'm rather used to this foolishness), but ignorant and revealing of the theist's inability to think rationally, or with communicate with maturity.

How do you determine what is good for society and what is bad for society? That implies you have some moral standard. Where did this moral standard come from?

Does it surprise you to find atheists have a moral standard? Really? I find it impossible to believe that you are surrounded by people who either act no differently than honey badgers, scrounging around for their next meal, or are walking, talking personas of Christ Almighty Himself.

How do you determine what is criminal without absolute objective moral truths? What is the foundation for showing compassion and comfort to another if you can't explain where moral standards come from? Hurt would be illusory because evil and sin are illusory.

I'm going to assume you're trying to make a point, and this isn't a genuine question.

Again, you dodge the question. Moderators, are you keeping score? I'm not even bringing God into the question, I'm just asking albeto how behaviors are determined to be wrong or right, yet he just goes off on a tangent.